[11:31:37 PM] Jake: the original reason for the prison system[11:31:44 PM] Jake: and police etc law enforcement[11:31:54 PM] Jake: was to keep violent behavior away from the public[11:32:03 PM] Jake: and keep people from infringing on others rights.[11:32:39 PM] Jake: If weed was legalized it would be sold in a pharmacy people would never get weed laced and get addicted to pcp xD[11:32:56 PM] Jake: A 100 billion dollar industry would no longer go to drug dealers[11:33:02 PM] Jake: and instead create business[11:33:08 PM] Jake: and expand the industry[11:33:23 PM] Jake: we could us Hemp as a substitute for paper saving forests (more efficient)[11:33:32 PM] Jake: the constitution is written on hemp. Also, taxing marijuana sales could bring in 5 billion a year to the govt.

cons of the usage of marijuana are de-personalization in some people depression and the smoke probably supports cancer. Those with heart problems have increased risk during usage.

With that being said Alcohol can damage new blood cells lowers blood flow to muscles killing muscle cells (including in the heart) damages liver has a long term affect on the central nervous system also has the affect of losing your personality in the short term you are more likely to injure yourself (same with weed) but the side effects of alcohol outweigh those of marijuana heavily. Why is it justified to have alcohol legal and not marijuana? (Or even why is it justified to have alcohol legal at all?)

there is a difference between completely legal, restricted legal and illegal

completely legal: u can use it any time u want, ur computer, eating, drinking, etc. cuz it's not bad to do so.

restricted legal: u can use it, but with moderation. Something that will affect to ur health as well as others. Smoking, drinking are the most common.

illegal: u can't use it cuz it will affect very badly to ur health as well as others. Weed and other drugs, for example.

I understand the logic of, they will do it anyway, so why ban it? However, that's for bad kids, those who do it becuz they are tempted to, and partly cuz it's illegal to do so.

However, for good kids, they don't do it becuz it's illegal, they don't do it becuz it's not allowed to. Wat if they are legalized? They will have no objection to do it except for "my mom told me not to" which is a very bad excuse seeing teenagers have a very big pride of themselves.

there is a difference between completely legal, restricted legal and illegal

completely legal: u can use it any time u want, ur computer, eating, drinking, etc. cuz it's not bad to do so.

restricted legal: u can use it, but with moderation. Something that will affect to ur health as well as others. Smoking, drinking are the most common.

illegal: u can't use it cuz it will affect very badly to ur health as well as others. Weed and other drugs, for example.

I understand the logic of, they will do it anyway, so why ban it? However, that's for bad kids, those who do it becuz they are tempted to, and partly cuz it's illegal to do so.

However, for good kids, they don't do it becuz it's illegal, they don't do it becuz it's not allowed to. Wat if they are legalized? They will have no objection to do it except for "my mom told me not to" which is a very bad excuse seeing teenagers have a very big pride of themselves.

Obviously restriction and regulation would be required. I don't know how it is where you live but here in the States plenty of gook kids smoke marijuana haha actually one of my friends, top of the class 4.0 gpa is one of the biggest 'stoners' in a school of over 2000.

Your argument was that good kids would do it if it was legal? Maybe good kids but smart kids would educate themselves and would be aware of the side effects like they do now. A lot of 'good' kids these days become alcoholics and addicted to tobacco because they are legal. Is that right? That's up to you.

Let's talk about some marijuana stereotypes for example smoking marijuana will make you stupid and you will grow up to be nothing, I will just throw some pot head names out their and lets see if you recognize them

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Stephen King

Montel Williams

Ted Turner

Michael Bloomberg

Barack Obama (and countless other political leaders.)

Michael Phelps (that one guy with 18 gold medals.)

Aaron Sorkin

Rick Steves

Sir Richard Branson

Name some successful alcoholics, please. Even if you can I doubt any match up to the degree of these names here all of which admitted to smoking canaboids either currently or heavily at one point in their life.

Another stereo type being it makes you stupid, my main argument with this other than the list of smart people above is that stupid people can smoke marijuana too and let's be honest, are more prone to. Just like how stupid people will more likely smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol or get addicted to opiates.

I would support the following restrictions that would resemble the same restrictions put on tobacco/alcohol. -Age Requirement-No smoking and working machinery-Coming to work stoned will probably be discouraged -No public consumption unless in specified restaurants or bars -Second hand smoke laws-Parenting and smoking do not mix and should be discouraged by law. (just like alcohol)

Well diaz we can sit here and do nothing about the tyranny of tomorrow and the bureaucracy of today or we can actually express our opinions. Most people here are pro legalization of Marijuana most are anti war, most are pro life most just want to live their lives without having to worry about the govt.

So why is the American Government so anti American? My theory is that our political system takes years to evolve and the issues we have now will be addressed in 20 years haha.

The US has almost 1% of their population incarcerated. You will struggle to find numbers this high anywhere in history in any country. A huge number of these inmates are either those jailed for possession or the *CENSORED* three strikes rule (where people go to jail for 17 years for stealing a packet of chips). Privatized prisons are huge cash cows and as long as they are guaranteed 90% filled prison's by the States paying them, there is going to be ethical questions regarding who is being imprisoned and at what cost.

The US prison system for minor offences doesnt work, it is meant to rehabilitate but all it does is encourage non felons to become hardened criminals, to form ties and links to criminal gangs and it only exacerbates the already poor situation.

Marijuana smoke does give you emphysema, if you are a pro marijuana advocate, dont say that there is no health costs just because you cant OD on marijuana.

Jake has some excellent points regarding the framework around how marijuana is treated. It isnt caffeine, but it is considered on par with alcohol. You cant drive under the influence while high, it does slow your reaction speeds thus you pose a higher unnecessary risk on the roads.

However he mentions "pot heads" when their actual marjuana consumption is relatively limited to what real pot heads consume, you say they admit to smoking currently or heavily, there is no evidence that a lot of them smoke currently and for most, they never smoked heavily. Winston Churchill was a fantastic alcoholic, managed to govern, remain witty and be a fantastic politician while drunk. One of the more famous alcoholics. Plenty of American greats have what amounts to an IV drip containing whisky for themselves.

All that doesnt matter. You need to focus on the legality and the practicality. Not because some famous people get high.

Diazepam is coming off less than intelligent with the fluoride fears IMO. Chlorine, Ozone, etc are all used to treat water for human consumption. Need that stuff to be sanitary.

The best part about the regulations isnt that it becomes legal, its that it becomes safer and more controlled. Weed lacing does occur and this eliminates any such problems more or less by having a source that is being watched at all times and forced at all times to be compliant with the law.

Pros: A much smaller inmate populationA step in the right direction for the war on drugs (hasnt been working)Increased freedom to smoke and do as you wishIncreased safety from lacing concernsNew laws to better prohibit and allow people to consume cannabis without the ridiculousness.Prohibition doesnt work, big savings in tax payer's money in this area, sucked up by the bureacracy needed to police the new regulations and law overhauls.

Cons:Encouragement for drugs. Very possibly sends the wrong messageRequires quite a large overhaul regarding laws, regulations and controlling offices for legality. May need to introduce new sensing equipment or update breathalysers to detect cannabinoids.Slippery slope regarding other drugs (MDMA, Im looking at you)Health effects regarding marijuana are confirmed. Emphysema from smoking it. Increased psychosis rates in adolescents who smoke it. Impairment of memory in adolescents (due to developing brain). Would seem wrong or even inappropriate for the government to encourage the acquisition of it.

There are alot of fingerpointing sessions that take place with debating legality, but the statistics are hard to ignore, and yet the Federal Government goes pretty far out of it's way to do just that. The hard fact is that it all comes down to money.

If you look into the history of the prohiobition of pot, youll see that back at the turn of the century in the late 1800's, it was introduced in many states as part of their "regulations of poisons". This is simply due to a lack of undertanding, and ability to scientifically test the substance. We all know that it is pretty well impossible to overdose on pot, no matter which method of consumption you prefer. You will eat yourself silly and pass out long befor it ever reaches that point.

Before this, Hemp was a primary crop grown in the United States, and was even mandated to be grown in Jamestown in 1619 by ALL if it's citizens. George Washington himself grew hemp as one of his 3 primary crops. It's uses were innumerable, as Hemp is a very versatile plant. Paper, ropes, cooking oil, heating oil and many more benefits came with Hemp as a commodity.

Despite what you might think, all of these benefits contributed to the prohibition of pot even more so than it's psychotropic effects, although those effects were the big "blame takers" in the propaganda campaign that arose in the 1930's at the hand of Harry Anslinger, who was quoted as saying "If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster marihuana, he would drop dead of fright.". Rather rediculous knowing what we know today.

As with anything though, you must follow the money. Who stood to gain the most from the prohibition of pot in those days? Who was funding Anslinger's all out assault on pot?

The key lies in the large businesses of the time.

For more information, look into the following:

"William Randolph Hearst"

and

" DuPont Company"

You see, at the time of prohibition, there were new technologies which made Hemp a big threat to the wood-pulp paper industry at the time, as well as making formidable competition for DuPont's new "nylon" fabric.

This is not the only reason of course, as I stated previously, there were several attempts to add Hemp to laws which listed it as a narcotic and a poison, which typically did not take root save a few regions around the world where a white minority ruled over a non-white majority. This is a history lesson in and of itself, but save to say that the laws only really took root in those regions because, lets face it, there was simply not enough physical proof that pot was as harmful as even alchohol.

While attempts to regulate it were indeed made before the turn of the century, it was rarely enforced since anyone could simply grow it anywhere, and as a crop, the benefits far outweighed the risks. It was not until Hearst and DuPont threw their money behind the effort to protect their interests, that the massive propaganda campaigns began, and it was subsequently demonized and laws then pushed through to prohibit its cultivation and use.

Flash forward a few decades, and now you have a failed war on drugs that does little more than cost taxpayers money and give more power to undesirable entities such as the South American and Mexican drug cartels.

These cartels have zero scruples, and WILL mame or kill anyone who gets in their way in their effort to capitalize on the demand for pot (among other drugs) in the united states. The harder the federal government tries to limit the use of these illicit narcotics, the more they simply end up driving the demand for it, thus creating a market for which these cartels can capitalize.

I personally tend to look toward places like Amsterdam, where drug use is made legal, and the resources that would otherwise be devoted to waging a war on these illicit substances are diverted instead to community outreach and education programs. I could rattle off the statistics here, but I fear I have already written a book on the matter, having not intended to.

I dont necessarily agree with the use of these illicit drugs per-se, but that does not mean that I agree with the failed war on drugs either. "The proof is in the pudding" my Grandma always said, and you need only look at the statistics of societies which have completely decriminalized these drugs in contrast to the United States. The internet is obviously at your access...

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum